Jump to content

Hurricane radiators - is there a tropical, or later type on the Mk.II and IV?


Recommended Posts

@StevSmar posted this here 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234963507-all-the-hurricane-questions-you-want-to-ask-here/&do=findComment&comment=3951483

"I made up this comparison on Radiator Inlet shapes and it suggested that there is definitely a difference between the Tropical versions of the Hurricane and the "Temperate" versions.
I've been working on a cross reference of the Hurricanes Schedule of Spare Parts and Side Elevation Drawings and it has different references for the Tropical and "Temperate" radiators:"

50816004697_7fee284a55_o.jpg

 

I suggested a separate thread for ease of reference. The Mk.i I presume is P2617 at Hendon BTW.

 

some wartime pics

Trop IIB in Russia, late 41, with 151 wing

Aircrew-RAF-PltOff-Edmiston-on-wing-and-

18606020334_51c959033f_b.jpg

 

IIC 3 sq Summer 1942

Hawker_Hurricane_Mk_II_C.jpg

KZ466 (there are few of this sequence)

Hurricane_IV_LB774_1943_3.jpgLB774 (note, this has armour underneath the rad)

Hurricane_V_Prototype_NL255_1944_3.jpg

Hurricane V NL255  (again, note, this has armour underneath the rad)

 

another shot of NL255

Hurricane_V_Prototype_NL255_1944_2.jpg

 

 

 

I did suggest that the different Mk.II vs Mk.XII maybe a Canadian build variation (the comparison image of a XII) 

5624 

Canadian_Hurricane_with_ski_undercarriag pl-16163.jpg

 

Hawker-Hurricane-Mk--XII--RCAF--aux-gas-

 

The British built all seem to have the more rectangular opening, the Canadian show a more curved sides.  

 

 

 

MW336 at Langley

Hawker_Hurricane_Assembly_MW336.jpg

 

 

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

The spares reference is quite definite about four different radiators, which may not translate into four different openings but do imply at least three - it is just possible that the Mk.I Tropical was so near the Mk.II in terms of airflow that a single enlarged design coped for both (definitely more information required here).

 

Most of the Mk.II examples you show above are late production and therefore tropicalised because late Hurricanes were not being used anywhere else.  For the rare exceptions such as UK-based Mk.IVs it is likely that all used the tropicalised for the sake of ease of production and later tasking. I think that you need some better comparison photos of early Mk.IIs to establish the shape of early Mk.II radiators: I think that the Canadians are very unlikely to have designed their own, on the grounds of no need.

 

After all, if the Spitfire Mk.V required a larger radiator when tropicalised, so would the Hurricane Mk.II.

 

Which raises an interesting question about Sea Hurricanes, required to operate in a wide range of climates, and another about the 1/72 Hasegawa radiator, too large for a Mk.I and too small for a Mk.II - could this be used for a tropicalised Hurricane/Sea Hurricane?  Bit of a long shot...

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gomtuu said:

....Some very nice views of radiator internal parts...

Thankyou, They do have some great photos of internal parts. I’ve never seen that level of detail before!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a minor change to the cooling flap actuation for the Trop, but there's also (in the weight & balance section of manual) Mod 262 "Tropical Cooling Introduced".  It is a net savings in weight of .02 lbs, which doesn't really tell us much!  It certainly could (might) be a different, slightly lighter radiator/housing installation.  [Note that in the Sea Hurricane section, Mod 262 is not included in the "standard mods included" list, but is shown as an additional mod as above for weight and balance purposes.]

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s an interesting analysis by Steve. I like this approach.

 

As has been said, the radiator and housing are two different items.

 

Serek is quite possibly ‘Serck’ the (then Birmingham) radiator manufacturer who are still around as a brand and were major wartime manufacturers. I doubt they made the housings/baths.

 

The manuals summary indicates that a tropical radiator type was available but only by ‘special order’ which may suggest limited use only. In any event it is interesting that identification of some 'tropical' requirement starts with the MkI although what exactly the 'special order' provided is not known although GBob's references are useful.

 

The MkV is not referred to in the schedule but it’s radiator was larger and perhaps this dealt with any cooling issues as the MkII was phased out.

 

As GB suggests above, an increased airflow and larger/improved radiator could be required for tropical conditions (similar to the provision of an improved radiator and revised housing in the MkII for the more powerful engine). That this was desirable is confirmed by Mason (p88) who describes the radiator of the MkIIe /MkIV being ‘deepened to provide improved cooling in the tropics.’ This would clearly require a deeper housing irrespective of the provision of armour. I have not read of the Mk IV type radiator being fitted to the MkII but later production MkIId’s received improved armour and one could speculate this included the larger radiator.

 

I have a good photo on file of an exposed radiator and demounted housing of a MkIIc in Tunisia but the front face and the front opening of the housing look to me very much like a standard Mk II type.

 

The different ‘side elevation’ drawing number of the MkII sea Hurricane to those of the Mk’s I and II suggests something changed for this aircraft. The photos of Sea Hurricanes IA Z4852, IC V6741 and IIC NF717 on pages 117/118/9 (Mason) do suggest a deeper radiator housing on the latter but this is not absolutely clear. If this is though the case, perhaps this was how the modification referred to by GBob was achieved.

 

It may be worthy of mention in this context that the summary aircraft data in Mason suggests that for all Hurricane Mks I, II and IV the coolant and oil capacity remained constant.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One possible problem here is that the Mk.IV was intended to get, and is usually quoted as having, the more powerful (at least at low level) Merlin 27 which would therefore require a larger cooling capacity.  It has however been said here that these engines were diverted to Mosquitos and the Mk.IV actually used the standard Merlin XX.  This would affect the desired radiator but which it actually got may well depend upon when the decision was made not to use the M27.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

One possible problem here is that the Mk.IV was intended to get, and is usually quoted as having, the more powerful (at least at low level) Merlin 29 which would therefore require a larger cooling capacity.  It has however been said here that these engines were diverted to Mosquitos and the Mk.IV actually used the standard Merlin XX.  This would affect the desired radiator but which it actually got may well depend upon when the decision was made not to use the M29.

I can only refer to Mason which is an excellent reference and knocks more recent 'picture book' publications into a cocked hat. The section on the development and production of Marks IV and V is fairly detailed. 

On page 88 he states that 'most (of the 524 Mk IV) aircraft were powered by 1,620 b.h.p. Merlin 27's although some of the later machines had Merlin 24's rated to give the same power.' 

I am not sure  if 'the requirement to provide improved cooling in the tropics' referred to was specific to the engine type as this surely is a more general requirement e.g. your earlier Spitfire reference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence I have is some experimental flights were done with a Merlin 27 in a Hurricane, but all the Merlin 27 were converted to Merlin 25.  There is no evidence of a Merlin 24 being fitted to a Hurricane, except possibly for experimental flights.  The Merlin 24 were reserved for Lancasters and Yorks.  Lancaster mark I production had halted in April 1943, 5 were built in July, then production resumed with 18 in September, rising to 103 in March, all up 362 Lancasters requiring 1,448 engines plus spares September 1943 to March 1944.

 

Cumulative official production of Hurricane IV \ Merlin 24 \ Merlin 27, to end of month,
 
Jul-43 \ 313 \ 16 \ 0
Aug-43 \ 349 \ 81 \ 0
Sep-43 \ 384 \ 349 \ 0
Oct-43 \ 412 \ 514 \ 0
Nov-43 \ 448 \ 719 \ 69
Dec-43 \ 464 \ 1296 \ 139
Jan-44 \ 474 \ 1661 \ 141
Feb-44 \ 523 \ 2028 \ 141
 
Either lots of Hurricane mark IV sat around awaiting engines or they used Merlin XX.  And the RAF census says they were deployed.  As of end July 1943 61 Hurricane IV were with Fighter Command (including 21 in miscellaneous units), 76 en route to overseas areas, 6 were in the Middle East, 1 in a training unit, 1 with the Admiralty and 7 had been lost.  By end October 1943, 111 were with Fighter Command (50 misc.), 21 with the Tactical Air Force, 14 were en route to overseas areas, 63 in the Mediterranean, 36 in India, 1 in a training units, 1 with the Admiralty and 23 had been lost.
 
As of end March 1944 of the 524 new and 1 converted mark IV the RAF had received 62 had been lost or converted to instructional airframes, 144 were overseas, 52 en route or being prepared, 173 with Fighter/Bomber/2nd TAF commands.  While the Ministry of Aircraft Production says no Merlin 24 had been exported, versus 108 Merlin 21 and 23 and 115 Merlin 22 (plus 2,240 Merlin XX).  If Hurricane IV were going overseas with Merlin 24 they would have needed spare engines (as of end 1944 two Merlin 24 had been exported)  Add the end March 1944 stocks of Merlin 24 engines and power plants figures, 198 with aircraft constructors, 471 with power plant builders, 611 in Maintenance Units, 69 with home commands (as of end February), 19 under repair, total 1,371 out of 2,327 built.  Not a lot available for Hurricanes after the Lancasters had been fitted.
 
A couple of examples of Merlin XX Hurricane IV
 
http://www.rafcommands.com/archive/18854.php
 
The accident report for KX190 (the 28th mark IV in serial number terms) and the loss report for KZ607 (189th) both state the engine was a Merlin XX, with KZ607 lost in February 1944.
 
Final 15 Hurricane IV were all fitted with Merlin XX according to the RAF museum.
LF501, LF502, LF503, LF504, LF505, LF506, LF507, LF508 ,LF509, LF510, LF592, LF593, LF594, LF595, LF596, 5 went to India, 7 to Russia, 2 to the Middle East.
 
So far every time I have found a mention of the engine fitted to a production mark IV it is Merlin XX.
 
Also consider as far as I know there were no other aircraft type outside of Britain using Merlin 24, so either the Hurricane mark IV were Merlin XX, which easily fitted into the supply system, or they had a specialist engine supply for limited numbers of aircraft.  In January 1944 the RAF offered to hand over 30 mark IV to the Russians at Basra, which was accepted, as the Russians had accepted nearly 3,000 Hurricane mark II with Merlin XX engines it seems unlikely the mark IV were any different engine wise.
 
Rolls Royce note the Merlin 27 was meant for the Hurricane V, when it was cancelled the 141 Merlin 27 built were converted to Merlin 25, which had reverse flow cooling for the Mosquito.  The Hurricane biography also states the mark V was the IV with a Merlin 27 engine, the plan to fit the Merlin 32 was changed for production reasons and that the first Hurricane V with Merlin 27 appeared in December 1943 with a 4 bladed propeller and larger radiator.  However the S guns caused stability problems that were cured by installing a 3 blade propeller.
 
Note the Hurricanes exported post war to Portugal were fitted with Merlin 22, "there were countless Merlin 22s available from the scrapped Lancasters and Halifaxes. 24s had a longer life after the war in transport aircraft".  The post war Jane's says the mark IV were Merlin 21 or 22.

 

Next, the mark IIE was a short lived Ministry of Aircraft Production designation for IIB and C that came off the production line as fighter bombers, you can see it in the official monthly production figures, the RAF does not use the term, it prefers IIBB and IICB for fighter bombers but it does say most were conversions, not coming off the line with racks etc. fitted.
 
The Universal wing was able to carry all designated underwing stores without the need for field modification.  The British Archives Hurricane biography file states the mark IV as introduced in December 1942 was "basically similar to the IIc but adapted for carrying rockets.  Later in August it was fitted with a special low attack wing.  These wings contained basic armament of 2 x 0.303 Browning machine guns and catered for the following alternative installations, which were carried under the wings,
 
two "S" type guns (40mm)
two B.H. type guns, (40mm)
eight Rockets (25 or 60 pound warheads)
two 250 or 500 pound bombs
two SBC (small bomb containers) or SCI (smoke curtain installation)
two 45 or 90 gallon drop tanks."

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the correction of Merlin variant, and the additional detail.  However I would be slightly more cautious about Mason's work: he seems very confused about the Sea Hurricane both in numbers and armament variants (possibly because of the conversion work being done at General Aircraft).  He also has produced a number of different accounts of the fitting of the Merlin XX, without mentioning (I believe) that it is the real reason for the 4 in extension in the nose.  Nor is he very clear about the Mk.IIB wing, whether the strengthened wing was intrinsic to the Mk.II, introduced shortly after production began, or only for the fighter-bombers.  Having said that, his earlier work for Macdonald is of considerable value for the technical information provided, and lacking from his later works.  In all fairness most of the later, other authors, works are not really superior overall.

 

The Mk.IIE was also used by Hawker (so it is said) for a development of the Mk.IIB with the universal wing capable (like the Spitfire Mk.Vc) of taking the variety of armaments carried by the Mk.IIA, B and C.  This wing was abandoned in favour of the slightly more limited Mk.IV wing.  Mason uses the Mk.IIE designation to apply to the Mk.IIB fighter bomber as supplied to its first unit, 607 Sq., but I've not seen it used elsewhere.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All 6 Squadron Hurricanes retained the Merlin XX through to the types final withdrawal in Jan 1947. The use of the Merlin XX actually became problematic with the squadron struggling with serviceability. The ORB refers to the availability of 2 or 3 Merlin XX for the squadron’s use in Nov 46 by HQ RAF Middle East at Kolundia.

 

Simon

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting and informative discussion! I had a thought regarding the temperate and tropical radiators matrices. It is a given that  that the Mk IV and V variants had  deeper radiator inlets and bolt-on armor plate. Perhaps the main difference in the temperate and tropical  radiators as stated in the documentation by @StevSmar was that the matrices themselves were different. Just as automobiles have two, three, and four row radiator cores for increased cooling, perhaps the Hurricane radiator matrix also had more rows of cooling  tubes in the core and were thus longer but not necessarily higher/wider. Just a thought, and I haven't found anything to substantiate my hypothesis, but I offer it as food for thought. The II's seem to have a larger and more angular inlet as compared to the Mk 1's. (The more I read about Hurricanes, the more I find I didn't know!)

Mike

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 72modeler said:

The more I read about Hurricanes, the more I find I didn't know!

You'll find that this is true about every aircraft ever built: aircraft are complicated and most of the time full of details that no-one beyond the original designers ever needs to know.  This is especially true when reasons are unclear, secret at the time, or commercially confident.  When it comes to aircraft built in large numbers, for a long time, and across different sites, then used in a wide range of environments, this is especially true.  Hello Hurricane.  Spitfire, P-40, IL 2, Bf109.   Name the subject of your choice.

Aircraft are not built in mass production but batch production.  And not even identical within the batches.  Whether you consider this a modeller's delight or a disaster rather depends upon your approach to these things.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Geoffrey, that’s an outstanding analysis. Just goes to show how even one’s best friends can let one down occasionally!

I wonder how Mason –or his references-got this bit so spectacularly wrong but it’s difficult to argue with your research even if I had a dog in the fight. Merlin XX it is, but this does not deal with the original question of radiator types.

 

Graham, thank you for the insight on Mason. The text is, as you suggest, ambiguous on the universal and Mk IV wing when it is clear they were different things. As to the text on the deeper ‘tropical’ radiator I am inclined to accept this, at least as a design concept although actual production is speculative at this point it seems. The photos of the MkV prototypes do though seem to show distinctly deeper armoured versions.

 

Whether such a radiator, possibly designed for a more powerful engine as opposed to climatic conditions – or the other way around?-could be used with the Merlin XX is an interesting question. Logically, the answer should be ‘yes,’ unless someone can come up with a technical answer as to why not. I may be correct in thinking that for lower altitude work in such climes it would be desirable. I think 72’s post above may have hit the nail on the head in terms of offering a likely design solution.

 

As to photographic evidence, accurate interpretation is difficult and whatever the Mark, the Hurricane radiator is a chunky beast. Where armour is present the shape of the housing is obscured and makes analysis more difficult. The opening of the Mk IV housing in the opening post is different to that of the MkII also shown although finding further corroborative photos  of operational aircraft will be difficult.

 

I had forgotten the post/thread based –link below-on the Mk IV so the following may be include some repetition although this particular thread has a different angle.

It occurs to me that an armoured radiator housing is going to require some strengthening and this is mentioned in the thread below. The supports appear to be on the wing.

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235074537-hurricane-iv-42-sq-burma-1945/

 

Here is a Mk IV captioned ‘with Merlin XX’ and a deep radiator and what looks like armour. I wonder if anyone will be able to read the text on the side;

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205124353I compared the above with:

Mk IIa:

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205065281

 

Although the camera angle is slightly different in the two photos, this comparison suggests the Mk IV radiator housing is perhaps slightly deeper but this may be due to the armour plate. I took the rear angled line and wing tip centres as benchmarks.

 

Mk IV in flight, captioned ‘has deeper radiator’:

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205124355

 

Mk IV with Vickers S Middle Wallop :

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205126962

 

Mk IV Burma- aircraft in background with radiator bath visible:

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205207733

 

Mk IV 170 Wing Burma – aircraft in background with radiator bath visible:

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205209670

 

It may be possible to undertake some comparisons with the Mk IID:

 

Mk IID January 1943:

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205127127

 

Mk IID January 1943:

http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib//55/media-55703/large.jpg

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very interesting discussion.

I cannot contribute any significant new information, I'd just like to add some thoughts.

  1. whatever a tropical radiator is, the table posted by @StevSmar has two columns referring to two editions of the Schedule of Spare Parts. The column for the 2nd Edition only refers to the Mk. I Hurricane, the column for the 4th Edition includes the reference to the Mk. II Hurricane and indicates that for both marks a "tropical" radiator is available to special order. If tropical radiators were larger, we might need to look for similar shape changes in the Mk. I radiator bath, which so far have not been noted;
  2. I had a look at Morgan and Shacklady's Spitfire "bible". The major modifications for the tropical Spitfire included the dust filter and enlarged oil tank, no mention of radiator changes. This does not mean the same has to be true for the Hurricane, but suggests it might;
  3. my understanding would be that a larger radiator is needed for a higher-powered engine, like the Merlin 27. However, if the Merlin 27 was not proceeded with and Mk. IVs still used the Merlin XX (my thanks to @Geoffrey Sinclair and @Sgifford for this), I should think that Hawkers kept using the same radiator and radiator bath, rather than introduce an unneeded change in the production line;
  4. a deeper radiator could have been present on the Mk. IV (and Mk. V) protoypes only. From distance, the armour plate over the Mk. IV radiator does still give the impression of a deeper shape. Personally I wouldn't be able to tell, and I do not recall ever seeing a photo as detailed as we would need here.

So far, I'd rather think of a different intake shape only.

I'd give some thought to the idea that a different shape might be associated with (some?) Canadian-built Hurricanes.

Edited by ClaudioN
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the tropicalised Spitfire had a slightly deeper radiator/housing, although I've never been able to notice anything.  Perhaps relevant, the new Airfix Spitfire Mk.Vc kit includes a different oil cooler for the tropical version, with a widened exhaust.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2021 at 10:21 AM, V Line said:

That’s an interesting analysis by Steve. I like this approach...

 

As has been said, the radiator and housing are two different items.

 

Serek is quite possibly ‘Serck’ the (then Birmingham) radiator manufacturer who are still around as a brand and were major wartime manufacturers. I doubt they made the housings/baths.

 

The manuals summary indicates that a tropical radiator type was available but only by ‘special order’ which may suggest limited use only. In any event it is interesting that identification of some 'tropical' requirement starts with the MkI although what exactly the 'special order' provided is not known although GBob's references are useful.

 

The MkV is not referred to in the schedule but it’s radiator was larger and perhaps this dealt with any cooling issues as the MkII was phased out....

 

Glad you liked the approach. It was only after @Troy Smith commented on Facebook with relevant photos that I thought I should do this comparison.

 

Thanks for pointing out Serek is likely Serck, I'll change that in my cross reference. My copy of the Schedule of Spare parts is not very clear so it's often tough to tell what was written.

Radiators were "embodied" items, which means they are supplied by the Air Ministry for installation by Hawker's, likely via subcontracting. Other embodied items were the engine and instruments.

 

Yes, the MkIV is not included in my cross reference because this was an addendum to the 4th edition of the Schedule of Spare Parts. The RAF Museum has a copy of this but I've yet to purchase it since it's what I call a "low value" document, and there always seems to be something else I want to spend my Airplane money on...
 

 

 

This whole idea of different radiators has really annoyed me. To me the photos obviously show there was a different radiator size.

The recently released Valiant Wings book by Richard A Franks (Which I recommend) contains the following statement on page 217 about the radiators "Drawn in June 1940 [Hawker drawing C.108452-56], this diagram shows how the Mk1 ventral radiator fairing was enlarged by adding a 2" wide parallel insert into the middle. It was really as simple as that: The MkIV/V had the same fairing, their radiator looked bigger because of the applique armour plate on the outside". This is incorrect on several levels:

- Although this drawing shows the outline of the radiator is 2" bigger, it's does not mean that a 2" insert was added.

- (The actual drawing C.108452-56 references likely has further references to other drawings which show the difference between the MkI and MkII Radiator)

- The drawing shown is only for the MkI and MkV, it does not show the MkIV and would have, if this drawing applied.
- We now strongly suspect there were 4 radiator housings at least (MkI, MkI trop, MkII, Mk trop). Maybe there was going to be a special MkV radiator if this entered production?

 

Page 212 also has a nice enlargement of KX.193's radiator, it shows the sort of "triangle" at the rear of the radiator fairing that shows up on the scale drawings, I suspect this is just a shadow and does not exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The AJPress 4-volume series on the Hurricane contains plans showing that the Mk.II radiator intake is deeper than the Mk.I but still with rounded sides, not a straight segment.   The fairing may have had a parallel section added but the intake was more subtle.  AJPress also shows the Mk.IV to have the same intake as the Mk.II.  I don't know where they got their information from, but this appearance is very much what I have come to accept for the Mk.II.  Troy's photos showing deeper sides are new and I have commented that they seem to be all on later aircraft: ie fighter-bombers intended for warmer climes.

 

I'm interested in the comments about the Valiant volume: I must admit disliking intensely the previous Hurricane book from this publisher, and not caring too much for some of the others in the series.  (In fairness, the Bf109 pair were a distinct cut about the others.)  I have thus avoided the Valiant series so far - and as long as they keep featuring subjects I already have a lot of books on, is there a real need to change?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The photos V Line tried to link to, in his post above.

 

 

large_000000.jpg?_ga=2.164741951.1841292

 

large_000000.jpg?_ga=2.237711104.1841292

 

large_000000.jpg?_ga=2.139603635.1841292

 

large_000000.jpg?_ga=2.203501200.1841292

 

large_000000.jpg?_ga=2.128156300.1841292

 

large_000000.jpg?_ga=2.208833298.1841292

 

large_000000.jpg?_ga=2.199394222.1841292

 

large_000000.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Chris

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic but the original Airfix Spitfire Vb in 1/48th scale featured 2 different radiators. The kit was reviewed in Scale Models and the reviewer, I can't recall who it was at this distance in time, commented that it was the first time he had come across this but assumed the Airfix designers had done their homework. 

The actual difference in the parts was barely noticeable, even in 1/48th scale.

It's been a while since I checked but I agree with Claudio that there's no mention of a deeper radiator fairing in Shacklady and Morgan, so these 40 years later it still doesn't seem clear where the Airfix designers got their information from.

John 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, StevSmar said:

 

This whole idea of different radiators has really annoyed me. To me the photos obviously show there was a different radiator size.

The recently released Valiant Wings book by Richard A Franks (Which I recommend) contains the following statement on page 217 about the radiators "Drawn in June 1940 [Hawker drawing C.108452-56], this diagram shows how the Mk1 ventral radiator fairing was enlarged by adding a 2" wide parallel insert into the middle. It was really as simple as that: The MkIV/V had the same fairing, their radiator looked bigger because of the applique armour plate on the outside". This is incorrect on several levels:

- Although this drawing shows the outline of the radiator is 2" bigger, it's does not mean that a 2" insert was added.

- (The actual drawing C.108452-56 references likely has further references to other drawings which show the difference between the MkI and MkII Radiator)

- The drawing shown is only for the MkI and MkV, it does not show the MkIV and would have, if this drawing applied.
- We now strongly suspect there were 4 radiator housings at least (MkI, MkI trop, MkII, Mk trop). Maybe there was going to be a special MkV radiator if this entered production?

 

Page 212 also has a nice enlargement of KX.193's radiator, it shows the sort of "triangle" at the rear of the radiator fairing that shows up on the scale drawings, I suspect this is just a shadow and does not exist.

Ah..... I have drawing 108452 there is a note that says "This fairing is as Hurricane mk1 except that depth has been increased by 2.07" Front & rear formers and inner & outer skins to be increased in size accordingly." The drawing shows a parallel band of 2.07" and states of the portion above the line "fairing above this line is identical with portion above datum line of a Hurricane mk1" and of the bottom line "fairing below this line is identical with portion below datum line of a Hurricane mk1. - including flap* " with the additional note "Except for adjustment of side angle of slope of ends in side view to suit increased depth"

 

Now you can this 2 ways - you can take it literally and have a 2.07" parallel section of profile OR adjust the front loft profile to account for the increased depth. I would suggest maybe UK did it one way and Canada the other?

 

 

Edited by Gomtuu
typo
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

The AJPress 4-volume series on the Hurricane contains plans showing that the Mk.II radiator intake is deeper than the Mk.I but still with rounded sides, not a straight segment.   The fairing may have had a parallel section added but the intake was more subtle.  AJPress also shows the Mk.IV to have the same intake as the Mk.II.  I don't know where they got their information from, but this appearance is very much what I have come to accept for the Mk.II.  Troy's photos showing deeper sides are new and I have commented that they seem to be all on later aircraft: ie fighter-bombers intended for warmer climes.

After searching,  found this, A British Hawker Hurricane IIA (RAF serial Z2963) used for evaluation of stability and flight control at the U.S. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) Langley Research Center, Virginia (USA), on 25 November 1941.

1200px-Hawker_Hurricane_IIA_NACA1.jpeg

 

from the first batch of Mk.II's, built before July 1941  

 

Anyone with an earlier British built Mk.II clearly showing radiator intake? 

 

also, same plane side on

800px-Hawker_Hurricane_IIA_NACA2.jpg

 

this is a very early  Mk.IIa 

hurr2-1.jpg

 

which is hard to see the radiator intake shape.   

 

Anyway, Z2963  shows a straight side intake in the first Mk.II batch. 

this is Hurricane IIc, Z3899/JX-W from 1 squadron RAF,  Autumn 1941. Aeroplane lost in accident on 22 November  this year. Unusual carton insignia visible – Indian head. Photo from Tony O’Toole collection.

indian-jx-w.jpg

 

Not a trop, again, 1st batch, 1941, straight intake sides.

 

The only deeper curved intake sides image identifiable are all Canadian.  Given a large proportion of surviving Hurricanes are Canadian, this would explain plans showing this detail. 

 

I'm inclined to there being a British straight side and a Canadian curved side Mk.II type radiator.  

Also, that the Mk.IV has the same depth radiator.   We know KX829 in Birmingham is a Mk.IV, 

 

 

This is LF686, which was a gate gaurdian before being swapped with NASM.

NASM_HurricaneMK_IIc_06.jpg.7b05c6137e89

 

 

26369801789_15114d8dc6_o.jpgHawker Hurricane  - P3395 Think Tank 049 by touluru, on Flickr

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, V Line said:

It occurs to me that an armoured radiator housing is going to require some strengthening and this is mentioned in the thread below. The supports appear to be on the wing.

 

They are clearly visible here

38146190971_79649ee1e4_b.jpgHawker Hurricane  - P3395 Think Tank 040 by touluru, on Flickr

 

this shows the armour off the radiator, you can see the prongs that attach to the points in the above image.

11380376346_c3310bdc90_z.jpg

 

while not that clear, if you at the pics above, the pic below does show them combined.

 

Hawker-Hurricane--Hurribomber---Canadian

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can opener acquired, applied, squirming squall of worms released.

 

For some reason the Ministry of Aircraft Production does not start reporting aircraft radiator deliveries in its monthly statistical bulletin until April 1943, some time after magnetos, carburettors, undercarriages, pumps, propellers and propeller blades had been part of the reports.  Of course the types listed together are for report purposes, so it does not mean radiators listed together are the same or even they are different if listed in a different line.   No mention of tropical Hurricane radiators.  Apologies in advance if I have missed a change, the report's format keeps doing things like moving the order of appearance making comparisons that much harder.

 

Radiator production for April 1943 was
999 Halifax II and V (Series I)
96 Halifax II and V (Series Ia)
702 Lancaster I and III, York I
409 Hurricane II and IV
13 Firefly
151 Barracuda
253 Spitfire V and XII, Seafire
356 Spitfire VII, VIII, IX and XI
231 Mosquito 1 Stage
16 Mosquito 2 stage
96 Typhoon, Tempest V
0 Welkin
125 Miscellaneous, including spares.

 

By firm
558 Marston Excelsior (Leeds and Wolverhampton)
737 Gallay
1,188 Morris
887 Serck
77 W.S.M
0 Victory Radiators
0 Herman Smith

 

In the May 1943 report Seafire became Seafire IIc and III, Firefly became Firefly I and NF.II.  Also oil cooler production was added to the report.  In June the radiator firms Hurry Heaters and Selman and Hill were added. Also in July Spitfire V and XII and Seafire IIc and III becomes 2 lines, Spitfire V (Temperate) then Spitfire V (Tropical) and XII and Seafire IIc and III.  Welkin became Welkin I and II, Barracuda became Barracuda II, Typhoon and Tempest V became Typhoon Ib and Tempest V.  In August a new line for Spitfire XIV, in October a new line for the Spitfire F.21 and another for the Hurricane V.  In November Hurricane II and IV became Hurricane IIc and V, Barracuda II became Barracuda, the Spitfire XII was dropped, the Seafire IIc replaced by the Seafire XV.   Also in November Lang Pen Co. began delivering radiators, a fact not noted until the March 1944 report.  In January 1944 the radiator type list was


Lancaster I and III, York I
Halifax II and V (Series I)
Halifax II and V (Series Ia)
Spitfire V (Temperate)
Spitfire V (Tropical), Seafire III and XV
Spitfire VII, VIII, IX and XI
Spitfire XIV
Spitfire F.21
Mosquito 1 Stage
Mosquito 2 stage
Typhoon Ib, Tempest V
Welkin F.I and F.II
Hurricane IIc and IV
Hurricane V
Firefly I and NF.II
Barracuda
Miscellaneous, including spares.


In March 1944 a line for Lancaster IV, V and VI, Windsor B.I was added.  In May came an all change for the Spitfire, plus other new items, the production by type list became,
Lancaster I and III, York I
Lancaster I and III, York I (Fully tropicalised)
Lancaster IV, V and VI, Windsor B.I
Halifax II and V (Series Ia)
Spitfire II to VI (Temperate), Seafire XV
Spitfire II to VI (Tropical), Seafire LF.III
Spitfire VII, VIII, IX and XI, Seafire XV (yes twice)
Spitfire XIV and XIX
Spitfire F.21
Mosquito 1 Stage
Mosquito 2 stage
Typhoon, Tempest V
Welkin F.I and F.II
Hurricane IIc
Firefly I and NF.II
Barracuda
Welkin
Miscellaneous, including spares.


The July 1944 reports adds a line for Spiteful.  The September report changes listed types to
Lancaster I and III, York I
Lancaster I and III, York I (Fully tropicalised)
Lincoln I and II, Windsor B.I
Mosquito 1 Stage
Mosquito 2 stage
Spiteful
Spitfire VII, VIII, IX, XI and XVI, Seafire XV
Spitfire XIV and XIX
Spitfire F.21, F.22, Seafire N.7/44
Typhoon, Tempest V
Seafire XV (yes twice)
Seafire LF.III
Firefly I and NF.II
Barracuda II, TR.III
Miscellaneous, including spares.


The November 1944 report added Spitfire XVIII to the XIV line and Lancaster Ic (which is an error for Lancastrian, not corrected until February 1945 report) to the Lancaster lines, also Tudor and Lancaster 30 (changed to Lincoln 30 in May 1945) to the Lincoln line plus a new line for Hornet.  December 1944 Seafire N.7/44 became Seafire F.45, Sea Hornet added to Hornet line.  January 1945 line added for Tempest VI.  In May 1945 the list was
Lancaster I and III, York I
Lancaster I and III, York I (Fully tropicalised)
Lincoln I and II, XV, 30, Windsor B.I
Mosquito 1 Stage
Mosquito 2 stage
Hornet I, Sea Hornet
Spiteful, Seafang
Spitfire IX and LF.XVI, Seafire F.XV, F.XVII, F.XVIII (yes 18)
Spitfire F.XIV, FR.XVIII and PR.XIX
Spitfire F.21, F.22, Seafire F.45, F.46. F.47
Typhoon, Tempest V
Typhoon, Tempest V (Fully tropicalised), Tempest VI
Seafire F.XV, F.XVII, F.XVIII (yes twice)
Seafire LF.III
Firefly I
Barracuda II, TR.III
Miscellaneous, including spares.


June 1945 adds Sea Mosquito 33 to Mosquito 1 stage line.  July 1945 splits the Lincoln line to Single and Two Piece types.  August 1945 a line for Barracuda V added.  As expected the types in production then declined.


There are tables of intercooler radiator deliveries as well.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Geoffrey,

 

Very interesting.  The double entry for Seafire XV gave me a momentary pause, but then I remembered that it had a "hybrid" cooling system, with symmetrical housings (unlike the Spitfire XII), but with a different arrangement of cores (compared to Spit VIII/IX, etc), because it had no intercooler to worry about.  So it was probably a sort of "half this and half that".

 

It has been mentioned before, but we must remember that "radiators" are the cores, while the housings ("cowlings") were generally part of the airframe.  So you could have two different cores that fit a common housing, which I think was true for the Spit V (no, I'm not talking about Mk.I/II vs "proper" Mk.V), but you might also have, say, a bigger radiator for tropical conditions (or a "hotter" engine) that required a different housing.  And THAT reminded me that Steve (or someone) should be looking for different drawing/part numbers for radiator housings- which may not be considered "spare parts", I'm not sure.

 

bob

Edited by gingerbob
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...